The Myth of Universal Health Care

The Left likes to speak of a "right to health care" and they promise that socialised medicine is the only way to protect that right. But in fact that is a myth. Not one socialised health care system in the world fulfils a right to universal health care.

My first real experience with the promises of socialised health care was in South Africa when Nelson Mandela promised free health care to all children under two years of age. That promise was quickly broken. First the emergency ward was inundated with mothers and their children. They showed up by the thousands. In fact the only ones who got any health care were the ones who could afford to sit and wait for hours at a time. The "free" care was paid for by diverting medical care from other, sometimes more serious, cases to these people. And for the most part the cases that now got attention were issues like sniffles, ear aches and sneezing.

Some would point out that in spite of that the serious cases got attention. Also not true. Early on the government started making exceptions. Premature infants under a specified weight limit did not qualify for this universal, free health care. In one prominent case the parents pleaded with the hospital for care for their new born. The bureaucrats said a rule is a rule and refused. Because the media covered the story private donations poured in for the family. With the money they received they transferred to a private hospital and paid for the care needed by their baby. The child survived but only because private alternatives existed. Many advocates of "universal" health care would ban such private alternatives. In those systems, unless you can get a bureaucrat to approve your treatment, you are out of luck.

Of course that happens all the time. Various illnesses are simply ignored under socialised health care. Others are political favourites. If you happen to become ill with a problem favoured by the elite they you may receive treatment. Otherwise you are just out of luck. So much for universal health care under socialism. In some places patients over a particular age are forbidden to receive dialysis treatment or heart surgery. Under socialism the sooner the old die off the better it is for the system. The Soviets stopped people from emigrating right up until retirement at which point, instead of labouring to keep the system going, they became a burden. The Soviets didn't want burdens so people previously banned from leaving were now encouraged to do so. Many socialist health care systems restrict immigration for the same reason.

Take New Zealand as an example. To immigrate to New Zealand each applicant must go through a long, tedious process of health examinations with "approved" physicians only. There are also strict age requirements in order to assure the government that the person will pay more into the system than they will ever collect. Now of course there are elderly people who would love to retire in New Zealand and who have the money to care for themselves and pay for private health insurance. They can forget it unless they are very wealthy indeed.

The government wants to keep the illusion of universal health care alive here. And if they allowed people into the country who were not part of that system it would call the system itself into question. Now these retired folks would be better off here even without access to socialised health care. And the economy would benefit from the wealth they would bring into the country. Even the government would collect increased tax revenues from their presence. But they can't come in because protecting the illusion of socialised health care is more important. Instead of everyone winning the government prefers increasing the number of losers just to protect the illusion of universal health care. And that means obvious cases of exclusion have to be avoided for the less obvious cases of exclusion that are rampant under universal health care.

It is not just certain classes of illnesses and certain classes of people that are excluded under the "universal" health care system. Certain types of treatments are also excluded no matter how well they may work. Specific types of surgical procedures are excluded because they are too costly. Specific drugs are excluded while cheaper varieties, which many not work as well, are embraced instead. The reason for all of this is scarcity. All medical care is a scarce good and thus has a price or cost. Prices are a means of rationing scarce goods including health care. You can abolish the price system-which socialists have long dreamed of-but you can't abolish scarcity. The prices do not cause the scarcity. The scarcity causes the prices. Without the use of price rationing you must substitute other forms of rationing instead.

So under socialised health care scarce health care is rationed out by political edict or by queuing. There is nothing "universal" about socialised health care at all. It is still rationed out similar to health care under market oriented systems. But there is a difference. The monopoly provision under socialist systems means that private alternatives are either difficult or impossible to find. Health care will always cost something but in the socialist system the bureaucrats get to decide which "treatments" are worth it and which are not. They get to decide who is worthy of treatment and who is not. They get to decide which illnesses receive attention and which are ignored.

While it is built on the promise of empowering the people socialised health care disempowers them and instead empowers bureaucrats and politicians. While it promises "universal" care it in fact restricts that care just as much, in fact more so, than does market oriented medical care.....

It is tragic that some people will never receive the medical care they need. Socialised health care did not solve that problem at all they just politicised it. At least in the market I could try to raise the funds for the care I might need. But in a true socialist system the monopoly health provider can exclude me and I'm stuck. I can't turn to the private alternative because under socialism there is no private alternative. Capitalist health care may ration care just like the socialist system does but it provides more and more options as time goes by. And each individual has the option of seeking alternative financing of that care....

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Page is here or here.

***************************